Bitcoin Forum
June 19, 2019, 09:52:58 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 [1369] 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2029411 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 04:58:05 AM
 #27361


Good grief Gavin not only didn't understand the exponential function, he now explains that he apparently never learned the concept of statistical variance. For example, I can only be sure to obtain about 56 kbps here where I am when I am on a 3G (that drops down to EDGE/2G) wireless connection with my laptop.

And these are the retards you entrust the future of Bitcoin to?

Did all these Yes voters just suddenly become dumb or were they somehow fooled?

1560937978
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560937978

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560937978
Reply with quote  #2

1560937978
Report to moderator
1560937978
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560937978

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560937978
Reply with quote  #2

1560937978
Report to moderator
1560937978
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560937978

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560937978
Reply with quote  #2

1560937978
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1560937978
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560937978

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560937978
Reply with quote  #2

1560937978
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 05:30:43 AM
 #27362

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers. 

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1129



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 05:39:14 AM
 #27363

Edit: I can't find anything in the Blockstream whitepaper to support tvbcof's claim that one can recover their assets from an attacked chain. The closest is section 4.2 Fraudulent transfers, but the only really viable action there is to dilute everyone's BTC by the amount of the stolen coins.

Who is going to do that, some administrator? A bankruptcy trustee? No.

The best that could be achieved would be to build in some sort of rules like that into the scripts. No concrete method for doing that is proposed, but even if it were, it couldn't possibly handle all possible failures, since some if not all failures are by definition unanticipated. In the event that the state of a side chain were scrambled, there would just be no way to know who should be able to redeem.

For this reason, even the hint (or in some cases merely a rumor) of a problem on a side chain will lead to a run-on-the-bank scenario.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 05:44:59 AM
 #27364

Edit: I can't find anything in the Blockstream whitepaper to support tvbcof's claim that one can recover their assets from an attacked chain. The closest is section 4.2 Fraudulent transfers, but the only really viable action there is to dilute everyone's BTC by the amount of the stolen coins.

Who is going to do that, some administrator? No.

The best that could be achieved would be to build in some sort of rules like that into the scripts. No concrete method for doing that is proposed, but even if it were, it couldn't possibly handle all possible failures, since some if not all failures are by definition unanticipated. In the event that the state of a side chain were scrambled, there would just be no way to know who should be able to redeem.

For this reason, even the hint (or in some cases merely a rumor) of a problem on a side chain will lead to a run-on-the-bank scenario.




the way it would need to happen in normal circumstances is for the scBTC to be mined back to BTC, by reversing the proof, most likely via merge mining.  since the most common cause of a failure is likely to come from a 51% of the SC since it is inherently less secure (<100% MM'd) by definition being able to get mined back is not going to happen.  after all, that would be the purpose for the attack; to kill off everyone's scBTC while simultaneously shorting scBTC on an exchange while going long BTC on the MC.

that would be a fun attack.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 1029


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 05:56:20 AM
 #27365

Edit: I can't find anything in the Blockstream whitepaper to support tvbcof's claim that one can recover their assets from an attacked chain. The closest is section 4.2 Fraudulent transfers, but the only really viable action there is to dilute everyone's BTC by the amount of the stolen coins.

Who is going to do that, some administrator? A bankruptcy trustee? No.

The best that could be achieved would be to build in some sort of rules like that into the scripts. No concrete method for doing that is proposed, but even if it were, it couldn't possibly handle all possible failures, since some if not all failures are by definition unanticipated. In the event that the state of a side chain were scrambled, there would just be no way to know who should be able to redeem.

For this reason, even the hint (or in some cases merely a rumor) of a problem on a side chain will lead to a run-on-the-bank scenario.


The whitepaper seemed pretty basic as most of them are.  It's counter-productive to bog a reader down in minutia in such works.

The 'flash of insight' came, I think, with Maxwell's update on the various 'elements' and progress on them.  Whether he outlined it specifically or whether I half invented it, I'm not sure.  I had put my mind to the problem of incremental value pegging and mostly failed but I kinda started to see some of the possibilities when (I think) Maxwell was describing some of the time-lock primitives and such.

I never really appreciated (or even fully understood) some of the stuff about payment channels.  To me it seemed like a lot of trouble and undesirable complexity for a rather narrow use-case.  I can recognize the efficiency of controlling flows with start/stop messenging along a pre-defined channel (vs. a multitude of incremental value transactions) but it didn't (to me) translate much beyond paying for a porn movie until one finished their thing which can be difficult to predict ahead of time.  I'm starting to glimpse how such efficiency could be used in more critical contexts, and in particular how such a thing could result in a default return of value absent occasional update pings.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 1029


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 06:14:22 AM
 #27366

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers. 

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.

My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment.


necrita
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 49
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 06:16:09 AM
 #27367

Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.


I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.

Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice.  Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours.  If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions,  then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too. 

The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros.  Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.

The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin.  Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.

Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need.  That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2884
Merit: 1029


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 06:27:55 AM
 #27368


Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.

The good professor and his side-kick cypherdoc have always been like two peas in a pod.  I think they had a little spat for a while but their sensibilities are so similar I'm sure they won't stay apart for long.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 06:29:59 AM
 #27369

Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.


I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.

Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice.  Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours.  If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions,  then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too. 

The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros.  Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.

The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin.  Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.

Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need.  That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.

Its obvious and anyone should be able to see it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 06:33:23 AM
 #27370

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers. 

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.

My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment.



Pea sized numbers like your brain.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 06:41:35 AM
 #27371

Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.


I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.

Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice.  Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours.  If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions,  then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too. 

The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros.  Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.

The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin.  Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.

Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need.  That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.

actually, wasnt it Trolfi who made the excellent comment in here when he was hanging around about wanting to see Blockstream's Pitch Deck when they were presenting to their SV investors?  I thought that was a cool term.
.
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 01:16:40 PM
 #27372

My last post for today...

Cypherdoc's poll seems to have gotten a recent infusion of  interest on the XT side of things not reflected in mine.  Just a bump to remind the interested to make 'their' thoughts known as widely as possible.

I notice it correlated with when I wasn't posting, and then as soon as I posted, the poll went back our direction.

Clearly politics is battle of filibuster, because the minds of the voters are malleable.

Seems that you and your colleague are professional losers, amateurish filibusters with lacking charisma. Cheesy Noone of the 1MBers was able to compete with that:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 02:18:20 PM
 #27373

Transports about to go off the next cliff.

Gavin's Bitcoin will be your salvation:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 02:19:55 PM
 #27374

likewise for gold.

lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 02:51:33 PM
 #27375

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers. 

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.

My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment.



such a ridiculously loaded question for a poll is insulting.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 02:54:56 PM
 #27376

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers. 

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.

My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment.



such a ridiculously loaded question for a poll is insulting.

this one is even worse:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1098850.0

these guys have gone over the cliff with their desperate character assassination schemes.  do not trust them. 

they do not have a realistic view of the world.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 03:01:08 PM
 #27377

i smell desperation from the 1MB'ers. 

they love to flap their lips don't they?

btw, my poll is back over 73%.  tisk, tisk.

My much more accurate poll is running 40/60 at the moment.



But my vote is stuck on the wrong side over there.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 03:08:01 PM
Last edit: June 25, 2015, 03:23:28 PM by Adrian-x
 #27378

Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.


I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.

Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice.  Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours.  If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions,  then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too.  

The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros.  Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.

The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin.  Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.

Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need.  That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.

his mission is to protect people, originally he was trying to understand Bitcoin. He spends a lot of time studying manipulation and uncovering scams I find his dedication admirable.  

He is just protecting the people who don't understand what is happening by educating them.

He won't use Bitcoin, I once offered him 1BTC to play with so he could test the system.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 03:19:24 PM
 #27379

i can't believe ppl would sell or short into that bid wall to bail those guys out on BFX.  stupidity:

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 03:23:22 PM
 #27380

Cypher, you and Trolfi should unite. He's dispensing the gospel day after day on reddit and the forum.


I see that as burying one's head 100 feet deep in the sand and laying down a foot-thick concrete slab on top.

Transaction fees did not go up, because most clients were not prepared to upgrade their fees, and replace-by-fee is still not a common practice.  Transactions that paid the standard fee got delayed for many hours.  If the "attackers" had used higher paying transactions,  then hiigher-paying transactions would have been delayed too. 

The "attackers" had intended to spend 5000 euros on the test, but their own BitcoinD servers crashed under the load and so they gave up after spending less than 500 euros.  Even so, the large queues that formed at the nodes crashed Blockchain.info, knocked out bitcoin ATMs, caused problems for BitPay and other services.

The small-blockians have no meaningful technical arguments against the block increase, so they are resorting to personal attacks on Mike and Gavin, and exaggerating the danger of a possible a split of the coin.  Which would never be a real risk if they did not make such a fuss about the increase themselves.

Again, I am each day more convinced that Blockstream had promised to their investors that the network would saturate in a year or two, and then the crowds would come knocking at their door for their Sidechains/LN solutions; and that Blockstream had most of the core devs, so that they could make the changes that they needed to the protocol while blocking any changes that their competitors would need.  That would explain why they were so upset, and why they continue to oppose it when the major players have all agreed to it.

his mission is to protect people, originally he was trying to understand Bitcoin. He spends a lot of time uncovering scams I find his dedication admirable. 

He is just protecting the people who don't understand what is happening by educating them.

He won't use Bitcoin, I once offered him 1BTC to play with so he could test the system.


such good samaritan ^^
Pages: « 1 ... 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 [1369] 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!